I know, right?! I mean, I thought Perfect Dark was impressive for having more then 3 things moving on screen without the framerate dropping to single digits. This is fucking RAGDOLL! And it's not even like early age Jurassic Park: Trespasser ragdoll, this is pretty damn decent.

Damn, finally, a fighting game that seems to touch every base for me. I'm very impressed. Multiple tier levels, a focus on space, positioning and mobility, and incentive to carefully strike instead of wailing on them with combos. I love it.

Playing New Vegas again. I like New Vegas from a gameplay standpoint. Weapons mods and hardcore mode and all that, but I tend to like Fallout 3 because it has the superior post-apocalyptic environment. I realize that they're both going for two separate things. So, I don't typically lambast Fallout 3 as much. For a newcomer like me it was actually the smarter move. Start with a more torn down setting in a place where cannon isn't so heavily in force.

Because when I bought Fallout 3 I was looking for Post-Apocalyptic survival. If they'd led with New Vegas I'd probably be pissed and swamped in a lot of back story that would only turn the Jargon Filter up to eleven and turn me off. New Vegas is a lot lest post-apocalyptic then Fallout 3, with reason. I also thought Obsidian king of dropped the ball on the whole concept of New Vegas. It's three areas, three areas make up the strip. I would have made it probably a quarter bigger. When it's the subtitle it's got to draw focus. Fallout 3 had the vast and confusing DC ruins that took up twice as much map area as the New Vegas area. Sure it was a confusing mess of rubble and subway tunnels but appealed to that explorers charm. Nothing beat looking at the Washington Monument from across WWI-like trenches.

DC was actually another smart choice, at least for Americans. Not every American is familiar with the Mojave, but we all at least kind of spiritually know our nation's capital.

At the end of the day relatively small gripes, but in playing the two games I can't help but notice it.

I wouldn't waste my money on that bland, uninspired piece of trash. It's only superficially similar to Fable, and lacks all the things that actually make Fable a good series. It's tedious, it doesn't have any story to speak of, the game world is vast but repetetive and makes the world of WoW look immersive and full of life. Combat comes down to button mashing, and fails to challenge even at the highest difficulty. Must I go on?

Yet you're probably going to buy Diablo 3. -__-;

This has been bugging me for days and I finally figured out why. See above.

This has been bugging me for days and I finally figured out why. See above.

Diablo 2 at least does the loot hunting well, the setting is somewhat interesting, and above all, the game has atmosphere. KoA has none of that.

That said, while I probably will get Diablo 3, I don't think I'll be getting it at launch, and I have very low expectations. Considering how cookie cutter and mainstream Blizzard games have become ( they basically invented cookie cutter games! ), and how bad the StarCraft 2 story was compared to the original, I'm expecting .. nothing.

Diablo 2 at least does the loot hunting well, the setting is somewhat interesting, and above all, the game has atmosphere. KoA has none of that.

That said, while I probably will get Diablo 3, I don't think I'll be getting it at launch, and I have very low expectations. Considering how cookie cutter and mainstream Blizzard games have become ( they basically invented cookie cutter games! ), and how bad the StarCraft 2 story was compared to the original, I'm expecting .. nothing.

Also, it has barbarian women. That helps.

Honestly, from what you're saying they sound like the exact same game. Run around, kill monsters, steal their stuff, hit one button to attack, and basically move to another environment that is just as inconsequential as the last one. You can't really go by what setting would be "interesting" because technically they're both interesting, but one-dimensional.

Honestly, from what you're saying they sound like the exact same game. Run around, kill monsters, steal their stuff, hit one button to attack, and basically move to another environment that is just as inconsequential as the last one. You can't really go by what setting would be "interesting" because technically they're both interesting, but one-dimensional.

I obviously can't say anything about Diablo 3 - and like I said, I have very low expectations for that game, so I'm not sure why I'm even defending it ( actually, I know why: KoA is a piece of trash, and even Diablo 3 deserves better than to be compared to it ) - but ... here's a list of things Diablo does better, just off the top of my head.

A larger number of classes, that are very distinct from each other.A greater number of abilities that are unique to each class, and that actually make sense to use ( as opposed to just spamming your normal attack ).A more interesting and immersive world with a great atmosphere.An actual story ( since Blizzard has outsourced its writing to chimpanzees, there might be less of that in D3 - that's my biggest fear ).A random game world ( making several characters is far less interesting when the world is always the same, with the same monster spawns and treasure chests in the same places ).Good narration.Occasionally challenging gameplay ( Diablo is not prohibitively difficult; KoA is just coma-inducingly easy, even on the highest difficulty ).

... Must I go on?

Edit: I just won my first online game in WEE. I'm quite proud of myself. It was an elegant victory, too. While my enemy was rushing me with a large army of tanks, I snuck up his flank and took out his one command vehicle ( basically, this means he can't hold any zones, which means instant loss ).

I learned a few things from that game. Above all, I learned just how effective a pair of Leopard 2 tanks with a bit of combat experience can be. Allow me to explain. All units gain experience, up to five levels, which improves their performance greatly. It's possible to field units with any level of experience, but the cost also increases. If inexperienced tanks meet each other, it's a messy affair. They're more likely to miss than to hit, and it's usually pretty frantic.

When my Jaguar 2s encountered some enemy T-72s, it was quite different. The Soviet tanks were busy trying to take out my recon jeep, without much success, leading me to believe they were inexperienced units. This allowed my tanks to get in range from the side, and deliver one well-placed shell each, instantly destroying the enemy tanks. My jeep was fine, by the way, thanks for asking.

Probably. I've not played Kingdoms, but I have played Diablo 1 and 2, and they're not that good. Obviously, it's a case of varying millage. However,

Diablo 1 had three classes. Diablo 2 had... five... not that dizzying. In fact the Barbarian is just the warrior the Amazon is just the rogue and the sorcerer got a sex change. You could probably recreate any of the classes with focusing in the whole str, will, dex thingy (obviously not in entirety because of special abilities). LoD added the druid and the assassin (the assassin's probably the only really unique class).

Come on, Hemingway, Diablo invented spamming. 95% of all attacks are normal attacks. At least KoA is supposed to have some God O'War style to it. Rather than. Click, click, hotkey, click.

A more immersive game world. I think I'd be hard pressed to find any world I care about less than the Diablo world. This kind of ties into the story. I never left a Diablo game feeling like I made their puppy-depressing world any better (seeing as Diablo has no real good or evil choice and they love shoehorning the your character is possessed by the boss thing). In fact the bosses devalue all since of accomplishment just for existing because they come back when you load your game! The manual is the thing that makes it sound great, and honestly the procedurally-generated world detract from the over-all impact of the story. Because none of it is permanent. It changes every time. There's no sense of attachment. No unique landmark. Just one cave after another (and people lambasted Oblivion for this). I imagine NPCs are basically little quest giving chunks of exposition in both games. So I'm left with less interesting characters in a world that is a classic example of gameplay-story segregation.

Narration? Really? We're hinging it on Narration? You mean that guy who says go there, kill that in so many words? I guess it's possible, but it's not like Hamlet or anything.

Diablo is only challenging... never... you either die and restart or you spam health and mana and hack and slash your way out of everything. The only thing that ever offered challenge in Diablo was the hardcore mode.

Ultimately, I think the nail in the coffin is that the guys who made KoA wanted to make a God O'War combat RPG with Diablo-style loot and gameplay (they said as much in the Game Informer feature when GI first covered it). Obviously, they succeeded all too well. I guess the Caveat is that it wasn't made by Blizzard. I think that might have a little to do with it.

Diablo 2 with the expansion has 7 classes. Quite a bit more than KoA's three ...-ish classes. I mean, the way the system works, you build your class based on three separate trees, and choose a "Destiny" ( basically a class ) based on how many points you've put into each tree. It's far from as deep as it sounds. First, each class requires a certain number of points, and it's the same for each tree. If you want to be a Mage/Warrior, you have to put an equal number of points in each tree, even if you only want some magic. This also means that everyone has the same pool of abilities, instead of having their own distinct ones.

And if you haven't played KoA, you wouldn't understand just how simple the combat system is. In Diablo, you may have one ability you favor over others, but there are different situations where different abilities work. As a Barbarian, you might be spamming your Double Swing most of the time, but there's still a time and a place for abilites like Leap and Whirlwind, and Bash if you want to keep your distance. In KoA, every situation is the same, and I found myself spamming the very basic attack most of the time. Not a special combo - those suck - and not an ability, but basic, left-mouse-click attack. That was the optimal strategy! Don't tell me Diablo is like that.

I think you're forgetting that in Diablo they actually managed to tell some fairly interesting stories. I'm partial to the Leoric subplot myself, and also that dark knight, Lachdanan ( upon going back, I think Lachdanan's voice actor is actually ... Aldaris? ... and he's also the narrator? This guy needs to stop popping up everywhere I turn. ). The Countess is the best example I can think of from Diablo 2. And while probably not Nobel Prize material, they're told in a somewhat engaging way. The acting in KoA, not least the narrator, are just .. ugh. Flat and emotionless are two words that come to mind.

Seriously, if you haven't tried the game, you have no idea just how bad KoA is. The demo doesn't give you a good idea of what it's like, either. Now, I've never tried God of War, but I thought that game was in the same style as, say, Darksiders or Devil May Cry, where you've got your different attacks and combos. Well, KoA is nothing like that. Because the combos are all useless. How would the game be if every combo except your basic attack was useless? Boring, that's how. And that's what KoA is. Boring, uninspired, tedious, an insult to gaming.

I'm not a fan of Blizzard's ( recent ) games, I have low expectations for Diablo 3 and I fully expect to be disappointed in spite of that. But no game deserves to be compared to KoA. I think I'd be quite comfortable calling it the second most disappointing game I've ever played, right after Modern Warfare 3. Modern Warfare 3 might actually be the superior game, because it's mercifully short.

And for a game with a bit of an emphasis on loot, it doesn't even handle that well. For me, that's a relatively small problem, but if that's a selling point I might as well point out that the inventory is horrible ( to equip an item, you don't just find it and drag it to your character or anything. you go into your inventory, and into either armor or weapons. then you go to the appropriate slot, and find the item you want. in a list. that's all text. it sucks. ). Finding what you want is difficult, and sorting it even more so. Your inventory is full and you want to drop something? It's very easy! Just find the item you want to drop in a list similar to what I described for equipping items, right click it, send it to your "junk" container, go to the junk container, empty it.

Seriously, what the hell were they thinking? It's very similar to Dragon Age 2's inventory, so I think that's the inspiration. And that inventory was not made for hoarding loot.

The bottom line is this: even if you think Diablo is the worst series of games ever, KoA is so infinitely worse, that you're going to be wishing you were playing Diablo. In fact, the whole thing might be an elaborate marketing scheme by Blizzard. Either that, or it's a tool created by the devil/Cthulhu/The Lord of Terror to torment us. That's also a distinct possibility.

The Countess is a god-awful unoriginal ripoff of... I've forgotten the name and I'm not going to look it up... but it was a real-life historical figure that bathed in the blood of virgin girls because she thought it made her younger. The Animated Hellboy movie called Blood and Iron had the sense to plug in some Greek mythology. Blizzard has pretty much always been lacking in the story department, and it's because there's no characterization. I can't say KoA isn't, but don't go calling what is basically a copy paste job (of already over-plagiarized) historical fact good writing. It had already been whipped to death by the 1800s. Diablo has never told good stories. The elements aren't there. Not really. There's no story and game play integration. You're going to kill Diablo because he's just got to die. Eventually you should ride to hell on the landslide of bodies you've piled up.

I'll have to give up on the gameplay even though from what you describe I can't really separate the two anyway. I haven't played the game, but I've never found any game as boring as the tedium, slog, and grind that Diablo turned into after the third quest. Not even Dark Souls, Dark Souls had character.

KoA's combat is very much a hybrid of Dragon Age 2 and God of War, it's passable but does present people with the option to play in a very simple manner with the only penalty being tedium rather than certain failure.Bayonetta it certainly is not (although, with the exception of God Hand, what is?) however it's certainly a cut above standard RPG fare in how engaging you can make it.Some of the abilities are pretty trash though. Frost Traps spring immediately to mind, although they're far from the only culprit of the "we've got space left and gamers are always stupid enough to fall for the "more is better", what can we throw in to fill it up?" game design philosophy.Without a pad though I can't imagine how well it would play. Of course you get a hot key increase via the keyboard (or a gaming mouse) however the game clearly has its design base set in the console world so I don't believe the combat would maintain fluidity without access to a game pad.

On the "what are you playing?" front I picked up Syndicate and UFC 3 on Friday. Syndicate is pretty much a Starbreeze game and all that entails. They were definitely the right company to hand the IP over to if it had to become an FPS, that's for sure. However I'm still holding up for a Syndicate Wars rerelease at some point--perhaps even on XBLA.UFC 3 is the second best combat sports title I've played. It does some things better than EA MMA, however ultimately it falls short of being able to snatch the crown from the EA offering. Which is a shame since the EA game is never, ever going to get a sequel.

The Countess is a god-awful unoriginal ripoff of... I've forgotten the name and I'm not going to look it up... but it was a real-life historical figure that bathed in the blood of virgin girls because she thought it made her younger.

Countess Elizabeth Bathory. She was sentenced to being walled up inside her home with a slot where someone could slide food in.

All right, I'll concede that point: Blizzard did not come up with the story for that side-quest.

Fairly minor complaint next to all the other points I raised, though.

Also, storytelling is not the same as originality. It's possible to tell an unoriginal story in an interesting way. My point was simply that Diablo has some good voice actors telling their story, KoA does not.

Furthermore, KoA's entire setting is that, too. It's basically a very bland version of Sidhe/fair folk legends. In it, the Sidhe, organized into two courts, are basically elves. Which is weird, because you can play as an elf. But they're different elves, I assume. That's how original it is. King Arthur, now that game had some awesome Sidhe. They looked awesome and scary, and the Summer and Winter courts were not strictly good and evil. KoA tries to do the same, it tries to convince you the Sidhe are, as it were, above mortal affairs, and they don't really interact with mortals ... but it's very poorly done, considering just how fast they talk to you and allow you into their ranks, if you so desire.

Now, can we kindly stop comparing a good game you don't like to a god-awful game ( whose creators should be forbidden by law to make more games ) you've never played?

For the record, Elizabeth Báthory, while a real figure, probably was not engaged in the things she's accused of.